The Elementary Valid

prezentr.com!

Arguments Forms
Shane Patrick G. Sordilla, MA
ADVANCED LOGIC
 Our objective is to build and examine a set of
logical rules---rules of inference---with which
we can prove the validity of deductive
prezentr.com!

arguments if they are valid. The rules of

inference may be thought of as a logical
toolbox, from which the tools may be taken, as
needed, to prove validity.
 1. Modus Ponens (M.P.)
(P  Q)
P
Q
prezentr.com!

If we infer (P  Q) with P we get Q.

Ex. If you went to Paris, then you went to
Quebec. You went to Paris. Therefore, you went
to Quebec.
 2. Modus Tollens (M.T.)
(P  Q)
~Q
~P
prezentr.com!

If we infer (P  Q) with ~Q we get ~P.

Ex. If You went to Paris, then you went to
Quebec. You didn’t go to Quebec. Therefore,
you didn’t go to Paris.
 3. Hypothetical Syllogism (H.S.)
(P  Q)
(Q  R)
(P  R)
prezentr.com!

If we infer (P  Q) with (Q  R) we get (P  R).

Ex. If You went to Paris, then you went to Quebec. If
you went to Quebec then you also went to Rome.
Therefore, if you went to Paris, then you went to
Rome as well.
 4. Disjunctive Syllogism (D.S.)
(P v Q)
~P
Q
prezentr.com!

If we infer (P v Q) with ~P we get Q.

Ex. I either went to Paris or Quebec. I didn’t go
to Paris. Therefore, I went to Quebec.
 5. Constructive Dilemma (C.D.)
((P  Q) . (R  S))
(P v R)
 (Q v S)
prezentr.com!

If we infer (P  Q) . (R  S) with (P v R) we get

(Q v S)
Ex. Julie has many options where to go, if she will go to
Paris then she will go to Quebec, and if she will go to
Rome then she will go to Stockholm. She plans to go to
Paris or Rome. Therefore, she will go to Quebec or
Stockholm as well.
 6. Absorption (Abs.)
(P  Q)
 (P  (P . Q))
Any proposition P always implies itself, of
prezentr.com!

course. Therefore, if we know that (P  Q), we may

validly infer that P implies both itself and Q.
Ex. If you went to Paris, then you went to Quebec.
Therefore, if you went to Paris, then you went to
Paris and Quebec.
 7. Simplification (Simp.)
(P . Q)
P
Simplification says only that if two
prezentr.com!

propositions, P and Q, are true when they are

conjoined (P . Q), we may validly infer that one of
them, P, is true by itself.
Ex. I went to Paris and Quebec. Therefore, I went to
Paris.
 8. Conjunction (Conj.)
P
Q
 (P . Q)
prezentr.com!

Conjunction says only that if two propositions,

P and Q, are known to be true, we ca put them
together into one conjunctive expression, (P . Q).
Ex. I went to Paris. I also went to Quebec.
Therefore, I went to Paris and Quebec.
 9. Addition (Add.)
P
 (P v Q)
The additional proposition, Q, is not conjoined
prezentr.com!

to P; it is used with P to build a disjunction that we

may know with certainty to be true because one of
the disjuncts, P, is known to be true.
Ex. We know that Paris is the capital of France.
Therefore, we know that either Paris is the capital
of France or Quebec was a French colony in Canada.
 Two features of these elementary arguments
must be emphasized.
1. They must be applied with exactitude.
prezentr.com!

2. These elementary valid arguments must be

applied to the entire lines of the larger
argument with which we are working.
 Sample Drill: For each of them, state the rule of inference by
which its conclusion follows from its premise or premises.

1. ((A . B)  C)
((A . B)  ((A . B) . C)
prezentr.com!

Absorption (Abs.)
If (A .B) replaces P, and C replaces Q,
this argument is seen to be exactly in
the form (P  Q), therefore (P  (P . Q).
 Sample Drill: For each of them, state the rule of inference by
which its conclusion follows from its premise or premises.

2. ((N  (O . P) . (Q  (O . R))
(N v Q)
 ((O . P) v (O . R))
prezentr.com!

Constructive Dilemma (CD)

If N replaces P, (O . P) replaces Q, Q
replaces R, and (O . R) replaces S this
argument is seen to be exactly in the
form ((P  Q) . (R  S)).
 Sample Drill: For each of them, state the rule of inference by
which its conclusion follows from its premise or premises.

3. ((I  H)  ~(H . ~I))

~(H . ~I)  (H  I)
((I  H)  (H  I))
prezentr.com!

Hypothetical Syllogism (HS)

If we let (I  H) to be P, ~(H . ~I) to be
Q, and (H  I) to be R, then we get
the same set-up under H.S.
 Sample Drill: For each of them, state the rule of inference by
which its conclusion follows from its premise or premises.

4. ((J  K) . (K  L))
(L  M)
 (((J  K) . (K  L)) . (L  M))
prezentr.com!

Conjunction (Conj.)
If we let ((J  K) . (K  L)) to be P,
and (L  M) to be Q then we get the
same set-up under Conj.
 Sample Drill: For each of them, state the rule of inference by
which its conclusion follows from its premise or premises.

5. ((C v D)  ((O  P)  Q))

((O  P)  Q)  ~(C v D))
((C v D)  ~(C v D))
prezentr.com!

Hypothetical Syllogism (HS)

If we let (C v D) to be P, ((O  P)  Q))
to be Q, and ~(C v D) to be R, then we
get the same set-up under H.S.